Nicolaas Vroom
Nov8-04, 05:10 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> schreef in bericht\nnews:418DDF77.4060009@univie.ac.at...\n> robert j. kolker wrote:\n> >\n> > There is no way of knowing if a theory is correct. The only thing one\n> > can do is experiment and if experiment and theory diverge (assuming the\n> > experiment is kosher, of course) there is a problem with the theory. We\n> > will never know if a theory is correct. We can only know for sure if it\n> > isn\'t.\n>\n> We can _know_ whether a theory has been correct in the past,\n> and we can _trust_ that it will remain so in the future.\n> There is no other kind of knowledge than that of the past.\n\nAn interesting discussion.\nTo make the things rather more complicated what about\na principle?\nIs a principle the same as a theory ?\nDoes the same rule apply to decide if a principle is true\ncompared with a theory ?\nHow do you prove that the uncertainty principle is true ?\nHow do you prove that EE(quivalence)P is true ?\nIs a principle something based on common sense ?\nIs a principle true because it is based on common sense ?\n\nIs the following logical reasoning allowed:\nSuppose you accept principle 1\nSuppose theory A is true because it can be proved by\nperforming an experiment.\nSuppose theory B can not be proved by performing an\nexperiment.\nSuppose that theory B is derived by using both\nprinciple 1 and by using theory A.\nIs it now allowed to claim that theory B is proved ?\n\n(If a theory is proved should its name not change into law?\nWe speak of Newton\'s Law but of Einstein\'s SR theory\nand GR theory.)\n\nNicolaas Vroom\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> schreef in bericht
news:418DDF77.4060009@univie.ac.at...
> robert j. kolker wrote:
> >
> > There is no way of knowing if a theory is correct. The only thing one
> > can do is experiment and if experiment and theory diverge (assuming the
> > experiment is kosher, of course) there is a problem with the theory. We
> > will never know if a theory is correct. We can only know for sure if it
> > isn't.
>
> We can _know_ whether a theory has been correct in the past,
> and we can _trust_ that it will remain so in the future.
> There is no other kind of knowledge than that of the past.
An interesting discussion.
To make the things rather more complicated what about
a principle?
Is a principle the same as a theory ?
Does the same rule apply to decide if a principle is true
compared with a theory ?
How do you prove that the uncertainty principle is true ?
How do you prove that EE(quivalence)P is true ?
Is a principle something based on common sense ?
Is a principle true because it is based on common sense ?
Is the following logical reasoning allowed:
Suppose you accept principle 1
Suppose theory A is true because it can be proved by
performing an experiment.
Suppose theory B can not be proved by performing an
experiment.
Suppose that theory B is derived by using both
principle 1 and by using theory A.
Is it now allowed to claim that theory B is proved ?
(If a theory is proved should its name not change into law?
We speak of Newton's Law but of Einstein's SR theory
and GR theory.)
Nicolaas Vroom
news:418DDF77.4060009@univie.ac.at...
> robert j. kolker wrote:
> >
> > There is no way of knowing if a theory is correct. The only thing one
> > can do is experiment and if experiment and theory diverge (assuming the
> > experiment is kosher, of course) there is a problem with the theory. We
> > will never know if a theory is correct. We can only know for sure if it
> > isn't.
>
> We can _know_ whether a theory has been correct in the past,
> and we can _trust_ that it will remain so in the future.
> There is no other kind of knowledge than that of the past.
An interesting discussion.
To make the things rather more complicated what about
a principle?
Is a principle the same as a theory ?
Does the same rule apply to decide if a principle is true
compared with a theory ?
How do you prove that the uncertainty principle is true ?
How do you prove that EE(quivalence)P is true ?
Is a principle something based on common sense ?
Is a principle true because it is based on common sense ?
Is the following logical reasoning allowed:
Suppose you accept principle 1
Suppose theory A is true because it can be proved by
performing an experiment.
Suppose theory B can not be proved by performing an
experiment.
Suppose that theory B is derived by using both
principle 1 and by using theory A.
Is it now allowed to claim that theory B is proved ?
(If a theory is proved should its name not change into law?
We speak of Newton's Law but of Einstein's SR theory
and GR theory.)
Nicolaas Vroom